(A) Except as provided in division (B) of this section, proof of cohabitation and reputation of the marriage of a man and woman is competent evidence to prove their marriage, and, in the discretion of the court, that proof may be sufficient to establish their marriage for a particular purpose.
(B)(1) On and after October 10, 1991, except as provided in divisions (B)(2) and (3) of this section, common law marriages are prohibited in this state, and the marriage of a man and woman may occur in this state only if the marriage is solemnized by a person described in section 3101.08 of the Revised Code and only if the marriage otherwise is in compliance with Chapter 3101. of the Revised Code.
(2) Common law marriages that occurred in this state prior to October 10, 1991, and that have not been terminated by death, divorce, dissolution of marriage, or annulment remain valid on and after October 10, 1991.
(3) Common law marriages that satisfy all of the following remain valid on and after October 10, 1991:
(a) They came into existence prior to October 10, 1991, or come into existence on or after that date, in another state or nation that recognizes the validity of common law marriages in accordance with all relevant aspects of the law of that state or nation.
(b) They have not been terminated by death, divorce, dissolution of marriage, annulment, or other judicial determination in this or another state or in another nation.
(c) They are not otherwise deemed invalid under section 3101.01 of the Revised Code.
(4) On and after October 10, 1991, all references in the Revised Code to common law marriages or common law marital relationships, including the references in sections 2919.25, 3113.31, and 3113.33 of the Revised Code, shall be construed to mean only common law marriages as described in divisions (B)(2) and (3) of this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1956–2026 · leading case: Hornbeck v. Hornbeck, 2019-Ohio-2035, 136 N.E.3d 966.
Hornbeck v. Hornbeck, 2019-Ohio-2035, 136 N.E.3d 966. · cites it 4ד171 or R.C. 3105.12 (the statute pertaining to common law marriage) indicates the legislative history or intent.”
Williams v. Ormsby, 2012-Ohio-690, 966 N.E.2d 255. · cites it 2ד2d 1235 (1988), and common-law marriages were prohibited in Ohio by statutory amendment after October 10, 1991, R.C. 3105.12(B)(1). D. Love and Affection Are Not Consideration for a Contract {¶ 40} Having rejected the cases that the court of appeals relied upon, we conclude that…”
State v. Burk, 164 Ohio App. 3d 740 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 2005). · cites it 2דSee R.C. 3105.12(A). Instead, it is the factual relationship of a common-law marriage that renders each party a “family or household member” for the purposes of Ohio’s domestic-violence statute.”
Drummer v. Drummer, 2012-Ohio-3064. · cites it 2דR.C 3105.12(B)(1). However, relationships between a man and woman that attained common law marriage status prior to October 10, 1991 are recognized as valid and remain valid until terminated by death, dissolution, divorce, or annulment.”
Taylor v. Taylor, 2013-Ohio-2341. · cites it 2ד{¶ 52} This conclusion is consistent with R.C. 3105.12(B)(2), which states that “Common law marriages that occurred in this state prior to October 10, 1991, and that have not been terminated by death, divorce, dissolution of marriage, or annulment remain valid on and after…”
Caspar v. Snyder, 77 F. Supp. 3d 616 (E.D. Mich. 2015). “Code 1935, §§ 5700-5703); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3105.12 (B)(2) (1991); 23 Pa.”
Dach v. Homewood, 2015-Ohio-4191. “Dach's First Assignment of Error {¶6} By Dach's first assignment of error, she contends the trial court erred as a matter of law in finding that the Ohio Constitution and R.C. 3105.12(B)(1) preclude the trial court from adopting a de facto date of commencement of the parties'…”
United States v. Long, 121 F. Supp. 3d 763 (N.D. Ohio 2014). · cites it 2דOhio Rev.Code § 3105.12. Long and Purucz-ky began dating in 1999, but apparently have chosen not to enter into a marriage relationship, which is certainly their option; however, Ohio law does not recognize a separate legal status for cohabitating unmarried persons.”
In re Est. of Shepherd, 646 N.E.2d 561 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1994). · cites it 2דEffective October 10, 1991, R.C. 3105.12(B)(1) prohibits common-law marriages in Ohio; however, under R.”
State v. Burkitt, 624 N.E.2d 210 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1993). “…were no longer married at the time of trial. 2 . Since October 10, 1991, they have been prohibited altogether. See R.C. 3105.12.”
Decarlo v. Est. of Maxwell, 854 N.E.2d 230 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 2006). · cites it 2דR.C. 3105.12(B)(1). However, common-law marriages that occurred prior to October 10, 1991 remain valid until terminated by death, dissolution, divorce, or annulment.”
State v. Burk, 164 Ohio App. 3d 740 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 2005). “See R.C. 3105.12(A). Instead, it is the factual relationship of a common-law marriage that renders each party a “family or household member” for the purposes of Ohio’s domestic-violence statute.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.12(B): 3 cases
Hornbeck v. Hornbeck, 2019-Ohio-2035, 136 N.E.3d 966. “171 or R.C. 3105.12 (the statute pertaining to common law marriage) indicates the legislative history or intent.”
Jordan v. Jordan, 689 N.E.2d 1005 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1996).
Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.12(B)(1): 18 cases
Williams v. Ormsby, 2012-Ohio-690, 966 N.E.2d 255. “2d 1235 (1988), and common-law marriages were prohibited in Ohio by statutory amendment after October 10, 1991, R.C. 3105.12(B)(1). D. Love and Affection Are Not Consideration for a Contract {¶ 40} Having rejected the cases that the court of appeals relied upon, we conclude that…”
State v. Burk, 164 Ohio App. 3d 740 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 2005). “See R.C. 3105.12(A). Instead, it is the factual relationship of a common-law marriage that renders each party a “family or household member” for the purposes of Ohio’s domestic-violence statute.”
Drummer v. Drummer, 2012-Ohio-3064. “R.C 3105.12(B)(1). However, relationships between a man and woman that attained common law marriage status prior to October 10, 1991 are recognized as valid and remain valid until terminated by death, dissolution, divorce, or annulment.”
Dach v. Homewood, 2015-Ohio-4191. “Dach's First Assignment of Error {¶6} By Dach's first assignment of error, she contends the trial court erred as a matter of law in finding that the Ohio Constitution and R.C. 3105.12(B)(1) preclude the trial court from adopting a de facto date of commencement of the parties'…”
Taylor v. Taylor, 2013-Ohio-2341. “{¶ 52} This conclusion is consistent with R.C. 3105.12(B)(2), which states that “Common law marriages that occurred in this state prior to October 10, 1991, and that have not been terminated by death, divorce, dissolution of marriage, or annulment remain valid on and after…”
Drummer v. Drummer, 2012-Ohio-3064. “R.C 3105.12(B)(1). However, relationships between a man and woman that attained common law marriage status prior to October 10, 1991 are recognized as valid and remain valid until terminated by death, dissolution, divorce, or annulment.”
In re Est. of Shepherd, 646 N.E.2d 561 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1994). “Effective October 10, 1991, R.C. 3105.12(B)(1) prohibits common-law marriages in Ohio; however, under R.”
Bevan v. Bevan, 2006 Ohio 2775 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 2006).
Decarlo v. Est. of Maxwell, 854 N.E.2d 230 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 2006). “R.C. 3105.12(B)(1). However, common-law marriages that occurred prior to October 10, 1991 remain valid until terminated by death, dissolution, divorce, or annulment.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.